Previous DailyTech stories have detailed recent cooling experienced by the planet, and highlighted some of the scientists currently predicting extended global cooling. Even the UN IPCC has stated that world temperatures may continue to decline, if only briefly.

Now, an expert in geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico has added his voice to the fray. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at UNAM's Institute of Geophysics, has predicted an imminent period of cooling intense enough to be called a small ice age.

Speaking to a crowd at a conference at the Center for Applied Sciences and Technological Development, Herrera says the sun can both cool and warm the planet. Variations in solar activity, he says, are causing changes in the Earth's climate.

"So that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years", he said. "The most immediate result will be drought." Herrera says satellite temperature data indicates this cooling may have already begun.

Recent increases in glacier mass in the Andes, Patagonia, and Canada were given as further evidence of an upcoming cold spell.

Herrera also described the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "erroneous". According to Herrera, their forecasts “are incorrect because are only based on mathematical models which do not include [factors such as] solar activity".

Herrera pointed to the so-called "Little Ice Age" which peaked in the 17th century, as a previous cooling event caused by solar fluctuations.

Herrera made his remarks at UNAM, located in Mexico City, is the oldest university on the North American continent.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

He publishes papers on hurricanes and cyclones. I could find nowhere on his home page, in his papers or in print where he explicitly denies the reality of AGW. Even if he did - so what? He's one dissenting voice amongst tens of thousands of scientists who agree with the peer-reviewed science that confirms AGW is real.

I've no inclination to plot anything myself - I'm not a climate scientist and don't believe that by cherry-picking a couple of data points, slapping it in to a spreadsheet that I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it. To do so would demonstrate massive arrogance and Dunning Kruger effect. Instead I will accept the scientific position of every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, all of whom confirm recent climate change is due to human activity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

To do anything else would make a person some combination of dumb, deluded, deranged and dishonest.

> "He's one dissenting voice amongst tens of thousands of scientists who agree with the peer-reviewed science that confirms AGW is real"

Tens of thousands? That number just keeps growing and growing. Even the IPCC only claims 2,500 -- but many of those they claim are well-known skeptics.

As for Goldenberg being "one dissenting voice", here's 400 more:

quote: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore

> "who lied about a list of '400 scientists' who disagreed with AGW - most of whom demanded to be removed from the list,"

You are confused. I attended that conference myself. None of the scientists I spoke with said anything about "asking to be removed" from any list. Many of the coference speakers I correspond with on a regular basis, and they certainly are not shy about making their viewpoint clear.

> "No, warming did not stop in 1998"

Graph the data for yourself. I gave you the links. No "cherry-picking of points" here, but the entire satellite temperature record, from start to finish.

> "I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it"

The problem is that many of those scientists don't believe in CAGW. As for quoting a Wikipedia article on global warming, I trust you're not seriously advancing that as a source?

Wikipedia is not the *source* - it references the source(s). That's the weakest defence against reality the denial team has! And you're supposed to be some sort of journalist?

I notice throughout you make no attempt to answer the issue that every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. You've got two options with this:

1. thousands of climate scientists have made the same mistake and have been doing so for decades

2. thousands of climate scientists are all in on some massive global conspiracy and have been perpetuating it for decades

Either one makes you look very stupid and / or very delusional - and you know it, which is why you duck the issue every time.

> "every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change "

"National Science Academies" are political organizations. In the early 1970s, the US NAS issued an advisory on the possible effects of global cooling , with action being urged to combat the future potential of an upcoming ice age.

Furthermore, you are mistaken in assuming these statements are the pronouncements of "thousands of scientists". They're made by an executive committee, and not voted on by the body at large. Few true researchers are interested in serving as the President of some body like the NAS or the IPCC; these positions attract only those interested in political sinecures.

Finally, when one examines the actual statements of these bodies, what does one find? Always some variation of "we are deeply concerned, please continue funding us for a solution". What else do you expect? Climate change has been the biggest boom for the geosciences in history, with funding as high as $40B over the past decade. A researcher who puts in a request to study the "effects of climate change change on the sex life of squirrels" now has a reasonable chance of scoring a few hundred thousand dollars. Do you really think they want to return to the days of famine?

Ah, the old global conspiracy theory - the last refuge of the desperate.

You're saying that every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet are lying in unison and tens of thousands of scientists are going along with it whilst earning the same salary (they're not on profit share, you know)? Also going along with this massive deception are the following universities: Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Massachusetts, CalTech, Stanford, Singapore, Zurich, Berlin, Australia, Tokyo... you get the idea.

And who is coordinating this massive, worldwide deception? The Illuminati? Lex Luthor? Dr Evil? Or maybe it's Al Gore.

And you and all the other deniers don't have a shred of evidence to back up your ludicrous claims. Only the deeply delusional, dumb or dishonest could believe it.

However, there is a conspiracy going on - for which there is massive evidence - a concerted propaganda campaign funded by ExxonMobil and other gluttonous energy companies to deny scientific reality and confuse the gullible - you're either a victim or a participant. Why would they do that? To protect their obscene profits - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/...

Fortunately, there is no scientific debate on the reality of anthropogenic climate change - it's only on sideshow sites, such as this, where 'debates' occur. You can post your dishonest articles as often as you please, it won't change the scientific reality that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change.

> I've no inclination to plot anything myself - I'm not a climate scientist and don't believe that by cherry-picking a couple of data points, slapping it in to a spreadsheet that I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it. To do so would demonstrate massive arrogance and Dunning Kruger effect. Instead I will accept the scientific position of every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, all of whom confirm recent climate change is due to human activity.

That's ridiculous. Anyone with a fifth grade education can plot raw values over time and tell if they trend up or down. Arrogance is not involved, but a modicum of intelligence and objectivity is requisite.

Is it ruly too much to ask that you think for yourself? God help us...